Conservatism

[GreecePwns]

Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"?

Now you are talking about corporatism, not capitalism. This is what the tea party wants to end- a government in the hands of the corporations, without handing it over to the unions.

By deregulating corporations? You think that will get the corporations out of the government? So when will the Tea Party membership of legislators be fighting against the idea that corporations should be treated as "persons" for the purposes of donating to campaigns? I haven't heard that plank in their campaign much. We are already a corporatocracy, quite honestly. It's just a matter of whether we will ever pull ourselves out if it or not. The Tea Party doesn't give me much hope in that direction, any longer.

Whether a politician is purchased by Walmart or your union, Woodruff, I don't care. neither one should exist. Yet they do. The tea party no longer "gives hope in that direction" because the media has lead many people to view it as a republican puppet show, and so it has partially become one.

In terms of the politicians claiming to be Tea Partiers, it really is a puppet show.

[Woodruff]

Now, if you want to look back, you will see that in the system I describe, there isn't enough government to be tyrannical, and the things the government DOES do are upheld by the majority. That's a representative democracy for you.

"If the majority doesn't want it, the government shouldn't do it" IS in fact tyranny by the majority. In fact a democracy (including a democratic republic) that contains no checks/balances for the minority IS in fact tyranny by the majority.

A government without the power to effect people's lives isn't what one would call a tyranny, surely you are intentionally overlooking this.

If a government does not have the power to affect people's lives, then it is no longer a government. It is anarchy.

Or maybe you are SO entrenched in this idea of big government, that you can't imagine a government that small.

I can. It is called anarchy.

Perhaps, in your mind, "small government"=anarchy. Maybe worse, like Salem witch trials.

That IS anarchy. If a government cannot affect the people's lives that it is supposed to be governing, then it has no power - that is anarchy.

I am a fan of small government. That's why I was a fan of the Tea Party at it's origination. It's also why I am no longer a fan of the Tea Party. I am not a fan of stupid, which I'm seeing a lot of in this thread.

[Mr_Adams]

Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"?

Now you are talking about corporatism, not capitalism. This is what the tea party wants to end- a government in the hands of the corporations, without handing it over to the unions.

By deregulating corporations? You think that will get the corporations out of the government? So when will the Tea Party membership of legislators be fighting against the idea that corporations should be treated as "persons" for the purposes of donating to campaigns? I haven't heard that plank in their campaign much. We are already a corporatocracy, quite honestly. It's just a matter of whether we will ever pull ourselves out if it or not. The Tea Party doesn't give me much hope in that direction, any longer.

Whether a politician is purchased by Walmart or your union, Woodruff, I don't care. neither one should exist. Yet they do. The tea party no longer "gives hope in that direction" because the media has lead many people to view it as a republican puppet show, and so it has partially become one.

Does the Tea Party favor deregulations of corporations or not? Last I heard, it did.
Also, you didn't answer my question regarding the "personhood" of corporations and donating to campaigns. Were you going to?

Blaming the media for what the Tea Party has become is ludicrous. It has simply "become" what it always was...the mask is starting to be pulled aside.

Yes, it favors deregulation, and with it, never again some asinine bailout attempt. Yes, they should be aloud to donate, and with all donations being public knowledge UPON receipt, and made open public information. Perhaps campaign donations could be a local news story, which any channel can report on, if they feel it is significant. What I do not think should be aloud are private donations of any amount, nor public funding of campaigns. got it?

[Mr_Adams]

I am a fan of small government. That's why I was a fan of the Tea Party at it's origination. It's also why I am no longer a fan of the Tea Party. I am not a fan of stupid, which I'm seeing a lot of in this thread.

And there is another election coming fast. It may be a long term rinse and repeat, but enough people believe in the tea party, that eventually we will start to pull actual small government people out of the crowd, one by one.

[Symmetry]

I am a fan of small government. That's why I was a fan of the Tea Party at it's origination. It's also why I am no longer a fan of the Tea Party. I am not a fan of stupid, which I'm seeing a lot of in this thread.

And there is another election coming fast. It may be a long term rinse and repeat, but enough people believe in the tea party, that eventually we will start to pull actual small government people out of the crowd, one by one.

You'll just get big government under a different label:

"Sixty-three percent of Republicans disapprove of Obama's handling of Libya, to 27 percent who approve. Seventy-six percent of Tea Party "supporters" disapprove of Obama's handling of it. But 73 percent of Tea Partiers and 78 percent of Republicans support the [no-fly zone] -- they're by far the biggest supporters of the strategy."

[Mr_Adams]

OMG, quote me more news I heard earlier today. the no fly zone should have been in place 2 days ago, that's why people are pissed. the man won't take action when it is necessary.

[Mr_Adams]

You'll just get big government under a different label

And there is another election coming fast. It may be a long term rinse and repeat, but enough people believe in the tea party, that eventually we will start to pull actual small government people out of the crowd, one by one.

[Symmetry]

OMG, quote me more news I heard earlier today. the no fly zone should have been in place 2 days ago, that's why people are pissed. the man won't take action when it is necessary.

OMG indeed.

If the strategy had been in place two days ago, can you honestly say that Tea Partiers and Republicans would have approved?

No- it would still have been wrong to them. That's what you get when you define yourself almost entirely in opposition to what someone else is doing.

[Mr_Adams]

OMG, quote me more news I heard earlier today. the no fly zone should have been in place 2 days ago, that's why people are pissed. the man won't take action when it is necessary.

OMG indeed.

If the strategy had been in place two days ago, can you honestly say that Tea Partiers and Republicans would have approved?

He would certainly have had my support.

[Symmetry]

OMG, quote me more news I heard earlier today. the no fly zone should have been in place 2 days ago, that's why people are pissed. the man won't take action when it is necessary.

OMG indeed.

If the strategy had been in place two days ago, can you honestly say that Tea Partiers and Republicans would have approved?

He would certainly have had my support.

Hmm, I have my doubts, but I'll accept that. What about the question? I note that you edited out the statistics I posted in your other response.

The basic point is that a lot of conservatives would support a lot of Obama's policies if it wasn't Obama implementing them. Or more widely, Democrats.

There's a weird kind of schizophrenia that's taken hold of the right in the US. It's not unique to conservatives, not by any means, nor is it true for every conservative, but it has taken over the leadership.

[Woodruff]

Yes, it favors deregulation, and with it, never again some asinine bailout attempt.

Deregulation will only increase the amount of money that corporations can make and therefore, only increase the amount of money that corporations will donate to campaigns.

Yes, they should be aloud to donate, and with all donations being public knowledge UPON receipt, and made open public information.

I am not saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate. However, my contention is that by allowing corporations to "donate as persons", they are allowed FAR more investment into getting their way in our government than they would otherwise. The claim that it would happen anyway but this keeps it from being under the table is a dishonest one, as by that standard all illegal activities should be made legal, because they will happen anyway.

Perhaps campaign donations could be a local news story, which any channel can report on, if they feel it is significant. What I do not think should be aloud are private donations of any amount, nor public funding of campaigns. got it?

So you believe that corporations should be allowed to donate money, but private individuals should not? And you say you want corporations OUT of our government?

What I think should happen is that candidates should have a set amount of money to run their campaign on, period. Everyone has the same amount. Do with it what you will. Seems to me that would be a nice litmus test for a politician anyway. But the greed by everyone is so overgrown in our political spectrum that nobody would possibly allow that to happen.

[GTE]

Thats a funny statement! Democrats do Nothing But legislate their personal beliefs onto others!

OH, so it is Democrats who want to heavily limit when a woman can have an abortion?
Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"? Its Democrats who think its perfectly OK for me to buy a house only to have it ruined by drilling/ mining, etc and that I have no right to expect any kind of compensation because I did not own the mineral rights? (note almost NO ONE in the east owns their mineral rights). Its DEMOCRATS who think kids education funding should be cut so wealthy individuals and corporations can save on THEIR taxes..

NEWS FLASH......... More money doesn't equal better schools!
Choice in where you send your children to school does! Something the Dems are against for some unknown reason(UNIONS)

[Mr_Adams]

Yes, it favors deregulation, and with it, never again some asinine bailout attempt.

Deregulation will only increase the amount of money that corporations can make and therefore, only increase the amount of money that corporations will donate to campaigns.

yes, they will make more money, but if you stop allowing the government to enact laws that affect the economy (back to the small government idea), buying politicians won't be worth a companies money.

Yes, they should be aloud to donate, and with all donations being public knowledge UPON receipt, and made open public information.

I am not saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate. However, my contention is that by allowing corporations to "donate as persons", they are allowed FAR more investment into getting their way in our government than they would otherwise. The claim that it would happen anyway but this keeps it from being under the table is a dishonest one, as by that standard all illegal activities should be made legal, because they will happen anyway.

see previous point.

Perhaps campaign donations could be a local news story, which any channel can report on, if they feel it is significant. What I do not think should be aloud are private donations of any amount, nor public funding of campaigns. got it?

So you believe that corporations should be allowed to donate money, but private individuals should not? And you say you want corporations OUT of our government?

Individuals should. And it should be public knowledge who they are. But nobody will care when Joe-Shmoe donates. Point is that when Walmart, BP, or AARP makes a substantial donation, it would be news. That would give you an idea of who you are REALLY voting for.

What I think should happen is that candidates should have a set amount of money to run their campaign on, period. Everyone has the same amount. Do with it what you will. Seems to me that would be a nice litmus test for a politician anyway. But the greed by everyone is so overgrown in our political spectrum that nobody would possibly allow that to happen.

Perhaps, but do you really think capping campaign funds would work? I'd say the previous points would limit the amount of money a campaign makes anyway.

[Woodruff]

Yes, it favors deregulation, and with it, never again some asinine bailout attempt.

Deregulation will only increase the amount of money that corporations can make and therefore, only increase the amount of money that corporations will donate to campaigns.

yes, they will make more money, but if you stop allowing the government to enact laws that affect the economy (back to the small government idea), buying politicians won't be worth a companies money.

Ok, I understand that. But then we will have corporations not needing to follow any laws. I'm not sure that's a good tradeoff, really.

Perhaps campaign donations could be a local news story, which any channel can report on, if they feel it is significant. What I do not think should be aloud are private donations of any amount, nor public funding of campaigns. got it?

So you believe that corporations should be allowed to donate money, but private individuals should not? And you say you want corporations OUT of our government?

Individuals should. And it should be public knowledge who they are.

Ok, I misunderstood what you meant by "private donations"...I thought you meant private individuals, not that it should be made public.

What I think should happen is that candidates should have a set amount of money to run their campaign on, period. Everyone has the same amount. Do with it what you will. Seems to me that would be a nice litmus test for a politician anyway. But the greed by everyone is so overgrown in our political spectrum that nobody would possibly allow that to happen.

Perhaps, but do you really think capping campaign funds would work? I'd say the previous points would limit the amount of money a campaign makes anyway.

It would be a simple thing to document how a campaign spends money.

[Timminz]

I personally know of at least one HIGHLY conservative individual by their personal beliefs who considers themself to be a Democrat because they don't believe in legislating their personal beliefs onto others.

Like gun control, health care mandates, and taxpayer funding of radio programs, just to list a few recent examples.

That you believe that taxpayer funding of NPR equates to "legislating personal beliefs onto others" simply shows me that you're too far gone to honestly discuss the issue.

Anything anybody who pays taxes in this country doesn't approve of the government doing, that the government then does, is forcing people to FUND something they don't want.

Of course it is. But that is not in any way the same thing as "legislating personal beliefs onto others" and I really don't see how you equate the two.

Look at his avatar. Remember he's American. Realize he's not using it for ironic purposes. Then you might start to understand.

[Mr_Adams]

Look at his avatar. Remember he's American. Realize he's not using it for ironic purposes. Then you might start to understand.

Oh yes, pretend it's not a joke. It's actually a really hilarious line from the sitcom That 70's Show, if taken in context.

But you are the type who likes to pretend there is no such thing as context.

[PLAYER57832]

Thats a funny statement! Democrats do Nothing But legislate their personal beliefs onto others!

OH, so it is Democrats who want to heavily limit when a woman can have an abortion?
Its Democrats who think companies should be able to buy as much campaign advertising as they want in the name of "free speech"? Its Democrats who think its perfectly OK for me to buy a house only to have it ruined by drilling/ mining, etc and that I have no right to expect any kind of compensation because I did not own the mineral rights? (note almost NO ONE in the east owns their mineral rights). Its DEMOCRATS who think kids education funding should be cut so wealthy individuals and corporations can save on THEIR taxes..

NEWS FLASH......... More money doesn't equal better schools!

Sure doesn't hurt!
Explain how you get that "logic" please. Because that is just all too easy a saying to throw out, but the truth is that wealthy communities with better funding DO do much better than poorer ones.

Choice in where you send your children to school does!

Explain how a small community is to truly offer "choice".

Also, per things like vouchers and what not, explain how taking funding from a public school is going to make a good education available to those who cannot go elsewhere?

[Mr_Adams]

Because that is just all too easy a saying to throw out, but the truth is that wealthy communities with better funding DO do much better than poorer ones.

Because this has nothing to do with teachers who actually give a damn. Must I point out that great minds of the past often had no formal education? Socrates, Plato, Washington, etc.

[Woodruff]

Because that is just all too easy a saying to throw out, but the truth is that wealthy communities with better funding DO do much better than poorer ones.

Because this has nothing to do with teachers who actually give a damn. Must I point out that great minds of the past often had no formal education? Socrates, Plato, Washington, etc.

That's your argument against her point? It worked out ok in the past for a very, very few individuals...so let's stick with that plan?

[Woodruff]

Choice in where you send your children to school does!

Also, per things like vouchers and what not, explain how taking funding from a public school is going to make a good education available to those who cannot go elsewhere?

Don't you know, that's irrelevant...as long as HIS kids get to go where HE wants them to...who cares?

[PLAYER57832]

Because that is just all too easy a saying to throw out, but the truth is that wealthy communities with better funding DO do much better than poorer ones.

Because this has nothing to do with teachers who actually give a damn.

I see, so you would take a pay cut and it would not, in any way impact how you feel about your job?

Must I point out that great minds of the past often had no formal education? Socrates, Plato, Washington, etc.

Actually, that is not true. It is just that "formal education" looked very different back then than it does today.

[radiojake]

Example of partisanship to a stupid degree -

My mum has a very good friend who lives in Virginia and who travels to Washington DC quite often for work. I was talking to her once about American politics and specifically (what I considered) a stupid amount of partisanship that seems to be totally counter-productive.

She told me a story that seems to sum up the ridiculous state of domestic politics in the USA - She had two of her younger cousins (or neice or nephew - doesn't matter) come and stay with her for a couple of weeks who were from a different part of the US. She took them into DC to check out the nation's capital because they were both politics students, and they hadn't been to the nation's capital before. Anyway, they got to the Whitehouse and she asked them if they wanted to go on the tour.

(The following conversation has been paraphrased)

'Oh, God no. We can't go into the Whitehouse!'

'Uhh, why not?'

'Because we are Republicans! We can't walk in there while Bill Clinton is President!' (obviously this was a few years ago)

'You wont go visit the Whitehouse because there is a Democrat in the Presidency?'

'No way!'

Obviously these two twats are not entirely representative of all Americans, and I'm no way suggesting that. I just think this type of partisanship (which seems very evident on this board), is completely counter-productive

[notyou2]

[quote="radiojake"]Example of partisanship to a stupid degree -

My mum has a very good friend who lives in Virginia and who travels to Washington DC quite often for work. I was talking to her once about American politics and specifically (what I considered) a stupid amount of partisanship that seems to be totally counter-productive.

She told me a story that seems to sum up the ridiculous state of domestic politics in the USA - She had two of her younger cousins (or neice or nephew - doesn't matter) come and stay with her for a couple of weeks who were from a different part of the US. She took them into DC to check out the nation's capital because they were both politics students, and they hadn't been to the nation's capital before. Anyway, they got to the Whitehouse and she asked them if they wanted to go on the tour.

(The following conversation has been paraphrased)

'Oh, God no. We can't go into the Whitehouse!'

'Uhh, why not?'

'Because we are Republicans! We can't walk in there while Bill Clinton is President!' (obviously this was a few years ago)

'You wont go visit the Whitehouse because there is a Democrat in the Presidency?'

'No way!'

Obviously these two twats are not entirely representative of all Americans, and I'm no way suggesting that. I just think this type of partisanship (which seems very evident on this board), is completely counter-productive[/quote

I agree. It's not like Coke is trying to murder it's rival Pepsi.
So why is American politics so virulent?

[Pirlo]

[Symmetry]

All thing?